closing map volunteer buff

can we get a change on this, for those that've done it once, not to have it come up again soon? i was on my necro trying to do things on HOT zones, and it kept coming up. however, it makes it more annoying when the minions are on cd, because i'd volunteered to leave one map already closing minutes before. so why not consolidate players to maps that aren't full, but have more players then the maps closing?or move other players to those that already have the volunteer buff already?end /rant

You are not forced to take advantage of the feature.Alternately, you could try the LFG to find a more populated map.

Good luck.

Edit: missing word

I think that's how it's supposed to work - it moves players from very low population maps, or ones where the population is rapidly dropping, into new ones or ones which seem stable. The problem seems to come when something like a meta event or a world boss has just finished and a lot of players are leaving lots of copies of the map. I'm not sure but I suspect it's because players leave at different rates.

For example last night I did the Foundry meta event in Vabbi for the daily, then decided to stay in the map and see if anyone was doing Serpent's Ire. The map I was in had finished the Foundry very quickly and closed not long after so I moved to another one. I was in the new map for maybe 2 minutes before that one started closing too and I think what happened is they finished the Foundry slightly after my first map, so it took a few minutes longer for players to start leaving. But in the time in between the game had no way of knowing all the people on that seemingly busy map weren't going to stick around long and it would soon start emptying out as well, it just looked like a more populated map with space for me to move into.

It is annoying when it happens multiple times in succession (especially if you want a populated map so staying on the one you're in isn't really an option) but I'm not sure how the server could be programmed to recognise when players are likely to leave a map which currently appears to be populated, and what problems it might cause if it tried to do that and got it wrong. It would need to know not only things like whether a meta event has just finished on that map but also how many of the players currently there were actually participating (and therefore likely to leave when it's finished) and how many were doing other things. Even if a computer can work all that out it's a lot of extra processing power to factor it in.

I don't think having a timer or opt-out period will work - from Anet's perspective they're shutting down low-population servers as a cost saving measure (it's far cheaper operationally to shut down a low pop AWS instance) and providing the buff as an incentive to do so (wish I could do the same for our products that use auto-scalers too)

@Danikat.8537 said:I think that's how it's supposed to work - it moves players from very low population maps, or ones where the population is rapidly dropping, into new ones or ones which seem stable. The problem seems to come when something like a meta event or a world boss has just finished and a lot of players are leaving lots of copies of the map. I'm not sure but I suspect it's because players leave at different rates.

It seems to be a frequent problem in Dragonfall for some reason. I have even had it happen while I was in a squad with 50 people. The map thought there were not enough players in the current version even though there were players everywhere you looked. The message popped up for everyone in the squad and we were all confused. I have no idea how the system works because of this since it seems to happen also when there are more than enough players to complete the meta.

@Atomos.7593 said:It seems to be a frequent problem in Dragonfall for some reason. I have even had it happen while I was in a squad with 50 people. The map thought there were not enough players in the current version even though there were players everywhere you looked. The message popped up for everyone in the squad and we were all confused. I have no idea how the system works because of this since it seems to happen also when there are more than enough players to complete the meta.

Volunteering doesn't actually mean your map is empty, rather it's no longer needed. It's the old overflow system, so when the map ahead of you empties, you're prompted to join it. Normally this would work as expected, but it breaks when everyone leaves at the same time.

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Danikat.8537 said:I think that's how it's supposed to work - it moves players from very low population maps, or ones where the population is rapidly dropping, into new ones or ones which seem stable. The problem seems to come when something like a meta event or a world boss has just finished and a lot of players are leaving lots of copies of the map. I'm not sure but I suspect it's because players leave at different rates.

I had that happen when there were about 20 of us on the map and actively participating. I thought I would change maps. I went from an actively working map to one that didn't even have all the bases captured.

@Healix.5819 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:It seems to be a frequent problem in Dragonfall for some reason. I have even had it happen while I was in a squad with 50 people. The map thought there were not enough players in the current version even though there were players everywhere you looked. The message popped up for everyone in the squad and we were all confused. I have no idea how the system works because of this since it seems to happen also when there are more than enough players to complete the meta.

I see, thanks. Seems like the system is flawed in that it is susceptible to lots of people leaving at the same time.

@Hesione.9412 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Danikat.8537 said:I think that's how it's supposed to work - it moves players from very low population maps, or ones where the population is rapidly dropping, into new ones or ones which seem stable. The problem seems to come when something like a meta event or a world boss has just finished and a lot of players are leaving lots of copies of the map. I'm not sure but I suspect it's because players leave at different rates.

Yeah, I did this many times thinking that I would join a more active map. I guess a possibility could be that the people working on unlocking their skyscales decided to leave. (maybe because the meta was about to start so it wouldn't be a good time to do the fetch quests or story)

@Atomos.7593 said:I see, thanks. Seems like the system is flawed in that it is susceptible to lots of people leaving at the same time.I wouldn't say that it is flawed. It seems to me that it is working as intended.

@kharmin.7683 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:I see, thanks. Seems like the system is flawed in that it is susceptible to lots of people leaving at the same time.I wouldn't say that it is flawed. It seems to me that it is working as intended.

Yeah, I said "flawed" for lack of a better word, because the description that appears saying that there are few players left on the map isn't correct. It creates confusion in situations like the one I was in where there was a 50 man squad.

@Atomos.7593 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:I see, thanks. Seems like the system is flawed in that it is susceptible to lots of people leaving at the same time.I wouldn't say that it is flawed. It seems to me that it is working as intended.

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:I see, thanks. Seems like the system is flawed in that it is susceptible to lots of people leaving at the same time.I wouldn't say that it is flawed. It seems to me that it is working as intended.

The thresholds may be a problem. 50 people is definitely enough to complete the meta fully since you can have 16 people dpsing each of the three bosses at the same time to kill them in time. So maybe the minimum number of players requirement is too low in the map instance. I often get placed in an empty map with a couple of players in Drizzlewood Coast unless using LFG. Assuming there are versions of Drizzlewood Coast map that are fairly active, the maximum number of players for a map instance in Drizzlewood Coast could also be too high relative to the difficulty of the meta.

It's a wonky system, someone in Bitterfrost frontier used that buff 5 times and each time it threw them in a map with a failed meta.While the map that was closing had a successful meta behind them.

I've seen that volunteer thing come up when I had a taxi tag for Drakkar up and people were telling me the map was full, so there has to be some other criteria than just the current map population. Or it's just broken...

One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

@"Rogue.8235" said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

The system for closing maps is already automated. This means that there is some trigger condition, or conditions, to close a map.

Information on how a meta progressing is stored at the server end.

The question is therefore what would be an improved trigger or outcome? One option is to test how far through a meta is, with players being directed to a map where the meta is progressing but has not yet finished.

An alternative would be to create a map where all players enter the same new map once a meta is complete. Maybe keep the old map open for the players already in there, but don't direct other players into it.

This isn't mind-reading. This is programming a set of options into code.

@Hesione.9412 said:

@"Rogue.8235" said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

Yeah, I assume the system is currently sophisticated enough to tell how feasible meta completion on the current map is (maybe just simply based on the player population). If thresholds are used I think they could use some tweaking in some maps.

I don't blame Anet for not being able to gauge accurately how many players are needed to complete metas. It's difficult to assess due to variations like player skill and numbers. This is where I think player feedback would be particularly useful. I think 30 players is enough to complete the meta in Dragonfall, especially if they know how to use spears and mechanics of the fight. On the other hand, I think there needs to be a lot of players to complete a full Drizzlewood Coast meta run because it takes very long (2 hours+ for a fast run) and the Claw of Jormag fight at the end is tough.

I wish map closing would trigger an end of map event. Kill all respawns on enemies, allies and nodes including no resurecting other players. Dead is dead and down means you have to take a WP which accepts leaving the closing instance. The event would be to clear the map before map close. Clear it of enemies and resources in the allotted time for a reward and boon to surviving players. Getting rid of hostile creatures would go quick but each player would have to farm all nodes to complete their full reward for themselves. Of course all dynamic events wouldn't start for the map close including world boss. It would even be amusing to make all friendly characters hostile for the duration of map close. That would mean no map services like merchants.

I know of at least one map they would have to fix an inaccessible mithril node. There is one on Frostgorge Sound at the bottom of the pit in Grimstone Mol that can't be farmed when it's active.

@Hesione.9412 said:

@"Rogue.8235" said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

You listed only one use case. The assumption that all players are only interested in a single meta event on a map. Programming the function this way excludes all other possible use cases, which doesn't make the problem mentioned in this thread go away. The function must be able to handle all possible intentions of all possible players loading into and leaving a map. This is what I was pointing out in terms of making this automated system identify human intent.

I know it's automated. You guys are asking for this automated system to be able to automatically identify what your intentions are and load you into a map based on those intentions. This means that the system must be able to handle all possible use cases. Again you only listed one.

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Hesione.9412 said:

@"Rogue.8235" said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

This assumes that all players are virtually equal in play style and skill. Otherwise you see how difficult this is. You need the system to be able to gauge the playstyle and skill level of each individual player to be able to identify how many are needed for a series of events. This also assumes that all players will be staying for the entire event and that all players are at least knowledgeable of the mechanics of the events (two more factors for the automated system to analyze and implement into action). How would the logic of such a function look like? Remember, the system must be able to gauge all possible situations for it to work as you intend.

@Rogue.8235 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Hesione.9412 said:

@Rogue.8235 said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

Yeah the player skills and style will be different, which is why I mentioned the difficulty in my previous post. I would take the average player skill and profession damage level, and use that to gauge the difficulty. Of course there will be players that don't know how to do things, but over time they will learn the mechanics of events. So using the absolute worst case of player skill would likely result in poor map population balancing in the long-term.

You could just ignore it at least for an hour.

There is very very likely to be a bug in the system as well. I have gotten that popup in the middle of doing reset Ley Line Anomaly with a group big enough to cause crippling amounts of server lag. That was definitely not an instance lacking in players.

@Rogue.8235 said:

@Hesione.9412 said:

@Rogue.8235 said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

You don't need automation or machine learning to have an effective system. Sure it would be great, like it would be great to have it in a million other aspects of the game too. There are other ways to make a relatively effective system. It's a cost vs benefit issue when deciding whether it is worth introducing data mining and machine learning into things.

Meta events are the hardest events in maps. If you have enough players to do the meta event there are always enough players that could do the other events in the map. I haven't seen a case in the game that suggested otherwise. So if the system ensures that there are realistically enough players to do the meta event and you are not interested in participating in the meta event, the current map population wouldn't be an issue to do the non-meta events anyway.

The problem of the system suggesting to move to a supposedly more active version of the map when it actually has less players may not go away completely with the suggested system. But it would result in a well functioning system. Just because you can't make something perfect doesn't mean you don't endeavour to make it as good as possible.

@Rogue.8235 said:

@Hesione.9412 said:

@Rogue.8235 said:One thing people seem to be missing is what the system would have to do in order for it to operate "sensibly" as described.

Ideally, this thread wants an automated system to understand and react to human intentions. How would you program such a thing to be able to identify and react to near infinite possibilities when it comes to human behavior. Additionally, how would you program it such that it doesn't require supercomputers. Our legal framework can barely handle human intentions, let alone video games.

However, I do understand the sentiment. It is wierd to volunteer for a new map only to immediately see that it, too, is closing.

At this point I am unsure if you are arguing in good faith.

No, maps with meta events do not have to somehow identify human intent.

A meta event map is a meta event map. This means that progress towards the meta event can be used as a measure of which map to close.

The problem is closing maps while players are actively doing metas. Currently, the "intent" of those players is not taken into account by the system. The system puts up a closing map irrespective of what is going on. This causes a problem with players trying to get into/stay in maps that are working towards the meta. The intent of players who are working towards the meta on an active map is currently not taken into account.

The system does not have to take intent into account. All players who are going into an active meta map will either progress the meta, or they will not. Those are the only two "intent" cases. The current system does not boot out players who are not working towards the meta, and we already have the situation where players are on an active meta map who aren't working towards the meta. My suggestion makes no change to the status quo, apart from placing players into maps that are more further progressed . And there are some players who change what they are doing and work towards the meta. For example, in AB, players doing HPs will sometimes change what they are doing and help with the main part of the meta.

"Intents" of players on meta maps are irrelevant. It is a meta map. Most players who want to be on a meta map are there because they want to do the meta, due to the rewards - particularly the meta-success rewards. The purpose of a meta map is for players to do the meta, otherwise there is no point in having a meta.

Your comments ignore the fact that maps already close, apparently without reason. I have suggested a way to improve the timing of the map closures. You apparently want to retain the current system.

We already have an example where a map closure occurs post-meta: Dragonstand. This means that a map closure post-meta test condition already exists. This also means that it might be possible for the closure trigger for Dragonstand to be extended to other meta maps, particularly Dragonfall and DWC.

tl;drPlayer "intent" is not necessary for map closing triggers.

@Khisanth.2948 said:You could just ignore it at least for an hour.

There is very very likely to be a bug in the system as well. I have gotten that popup in the middle of doing reset Ley Line Anomaly with a group big enough to cause crippling amounts of server lag. That was definitely not an instance lacking in players.

I have been on a Dragonfall map where the damn thing came up, and we were tier 2 on one camp and tier 1 on the other two. I swapped because I didn't know if an hour was long enough to do the rest of the meta and decided it probably wasn't. I ended up on a map where the camps weren't even captured.

I've also had circumstances where I have changed maps two/three times in a row. I choose to go to another map, and then literally the next closing map warning appears within five minutes.

The current system has a problem. It could be improved.